Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

tcd004 writes "The U.S. military is developing technology to disable, jam, and even destroy enemy satellites. But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race.

There will be no need to worry about weapons based in space...someone will just send a ship up and steal the whole satellite.

This is why we need the snooping powers provided by the USA-PATRIOT act. All we need do to foil the plots of satellite-stealing villains is track the purchases of large numbers of silver jumpsuits and miniskirts. An ounce of prevention...

"But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race."

Irrelevant. Whether or not developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapons race does not answer the question as to whether or not space weapons are necessary.

Well, if Michael Krepon, the director of something called the "Space Security Project" for something called the "Stimson Center" says we don't need space-based weapons, that pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?

It does when ASAT weapons come into play. As the need to defend oneself from satellite-borne weapons increases, the likelihood of developing a weapon capable of taking them down also increases. ASATs are difficult to do, but not impossible, and the nations most likely to need defense against satellite-borne weapons are the ones that already have (US, Russia) or could develop (UK, France, India, Pakistan, Iran, Japan, North Korea) ASAT missiles.

The WMDs, which clearly did exist (we even have records he used them) don't need airholes, and are easier to hide harder to find

1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.

2) The inspections teams were on the same track; the IAEA was reportedly close to declaring Iraq nuclear-free, while UNMOVIC was working on verifying chemical weapon destruction quantities based on the amount of residual chemicals in the destruction zones. The residuals were evident, but the quantity of source material was unknown. Both have now stated that they believe, just like Kay, that there were not WMDs in Iraq. In short, every inspection team sent to Iraq has reached that same conclusion.

3) The highest profile Iraqi defector in history, Hussein Kamel [wikipedia.org] (Saddam's son-in-law), in addition to giving a bunch of humiliating information on Iraq that he later got assassinated for (exposing Iraq's biological warfare program and leading them to the information, pointing out that UNSCOM's head's personal translator was a double agent, etc), informed the teams that Iraq *had* destroyed its chemical and biological agents in order to try and get the embargo lifted and limit inspection team knowlege of how much their scientists knew.

Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspections

The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government. Blix - the more harsh of the two organization heads - stated that "Iraq wwas guilty of only small infractions" [guardian.co.uk]. Most of the Iraqi complaints were of the US spying to gather information for war, which turned out to be true [washingtonpost.com]. And lets not forget the peace initiatives [wikipedia.org].

active promotion of terrorism

The closest thing Iraq did to active promotion of terrorism was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to compensate for Israel's policy of destroying the families' homes. Of course, Saudi Arabia did the exact same thing. Beyond that, there was very, very little that could be construed as supporting terrorism (a lot of misinformation went around on this subject: read up on Ansar al-Islam [bbc.co.uk] (more) [baltimoresun.com], Ramzi Yousef [prisonplanet.com] (mirror), Abu Nidal [wikipedia.org], and Salman Pak [wikipedia.org]).

Now, if you want countries with clear, major ties to funding terrorists, you need to look at Iran and the United States.

Illegal attacks on peacekeepers

Oh, this is just rich. The No-Fly Zones were not UN-accepted; the French, Russians, and Chinese considered the joint US-British "No Fly" enforcement to be both illegal and counterproductive violation of Iraq's airspace. Then, before war began, we began bombing essentially at will [timesonline.co.uk] to try and goad Iraq into attacking the US. The reason we were able to start the war with a ground assault was that our air assault began long before the war started.

1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.

You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist. In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe.

The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government.

Excuse me, at one point the U.N. teams left because they were not permitted to do their job. You are referring to an exceptionally narrow timeframe and missing the big picture that Iraq sometimes cooperated and sometimes did not. The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end. You mentioned that Sadaam destroyed stockpiles. Why did he not do so under UN supervision? Clearly he wanted people to believe he still had WMD. He assumed it would enhance his ability to "negotiate" and provide a deterrent. Given the UN's spotty record, being suprised by his nuclear program and later his bio program, it was prudent to believe be a bit cautious with preliminary and politicised UN reports.

In general you confuse to separate issues: "Does Sadaam still have WMD?" and "Is an attack on the west imminent?". The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while, it had become a political wedge issue wield for political gain. Sometimes wielded by those who agreed Sadaam had WMD at the time, just like Bush, and some who even voted for force at the time. If you fail to consider the politics you will never truly understand events and will be easily manipulated. The left is as guilty as the right.

The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end.

Consider this: You are Sadaam, and you wish to deter a hostile superpower from removing you from power. Given that building WMD could be costly in terms of money, resources, and international goodwill, wouldn't it be better to make people wonder if you have them? If you build them, it might give the west a reason to invade, since you are then a threat to them. If you don'

You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was known a year or more after the decision

I do no such thing - please cite where I do that (your quote, about David Kay, has nothing to do with what was known beforehand. David Kay was, and still is, a pro-war hawk; he was, but is anything but now, a believer in present-day Iraqi WMDs)

In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying

The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies? Obviously - in fact, many of them got their intellig

What a creative job of editing you have there. I actually wrote: "In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example." I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have simply had a shallow understanding of events but now I am beginning to suspect that you simply have a political age

The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria. The fact was that these WMD's existed. They were used, and this is documented. There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.

Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.

Quoth Scott Ritter:

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.

Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.

Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.

There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.

While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.

And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.

one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.

You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.

Seriously though, I don't think you can claim a moral high ground for defending "cultural and historical" nor even sovereignty of nations against the overthrow of a tyranical govenment that allows things like Saddam's Iraq did. The sad thing is that the UN did not act a long time ago - International law sucks

One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.

Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.

Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.

Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.

Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.

I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.

A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.

The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria.

Yeah. Uh huh. The administration who sold the world on WMD doesn't have enough shovels to look for them. Why don't you do yourself a favor and read Kay's testimony yourself? He had all the resources he wanted. He conclusion? We made a big, big mistake on the WMD issue (he still supports the war, though).

The fact was that these WMD's existed.

Yes, they did. In 1991.

They were used

Yes, they were, in 1982-1987. When we were supporting Iraq against Iran.

and this is documented.

Not only is it documented, but the Reagan adminstration blocked a call for ceasing weapons sales to their ally Iraq at the time.

There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.

Quite true, but there is ample *evidence* in every line of investigation. There was no documentation that Oswald shot Kennedy, but there's plenty of evidence.

Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.

The heck it did! [fas.org] Quit making stuff up. One thing it did call for, I may note, is a nuclear-free zone in the middle east (*cough* Israel *cough*)

Iraq had no right to ignore it based on silly "spy!" claims.

A) The majority of the Security Council was in agreement with them in that the US and British had no right to be there.

B) The US *was* spying on them, not only through the No-Fly Zones, but through the inspection teams (to the disdain of many of the inspectors, who saw it as sabotaging their work). I already gave a ref - need more?

Attacks on these peacekeepers were entirely illegal and unprovoked aggression.

1) Read the bloody resolution2) Read France, Russia, and China's comments on the subject (the majority of the SC)3) I already gave refs documenting the extreme examples of provocation, including direct, deliberate, admitted attempts to goad Iraq into war.

To stop these attacks alone, the allies had the right to whomp Saddam's terrorist infrascture as hard as possible.

The "terrorist" issue was well referenced in the last post (same response to your next snippet, cut out)

The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.

I *seriously* hope you're not one of those delusional "Iraq did Sept. 11th" nuts.

Blix's own reports detailed large infractions.

I bloody quoted Blix for you! What more do you need, him to tell you in person? The US media only reported the infractions and played them up. Blix himself stated that they were minor, and all of them were resolved. Now, if you want to talk about major, unresolved infractions in the middle east [middleeastnews.com]...

How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this.

Nothing true about it? He was bloody killed over it. He was the very reason that the Iraqi biological program was exposed. Look, deny reality all you want, but that's your own little fantasy world you'll be living in.

If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections.

In case you forgot history, they *did* welcome inspections.

Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying.

The heck there isn't! One has a goal of finding WMDs; the other had the goal of assassinating Saddam and uncovering his conventional forces and how best to defeat them.

Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain.

To complain about *spying*? Point to me the "US gets to spy on anything they want in Iraq to pursue the

You call someone a troll and an anti semite. I say that when you act a certain way, you look like an idiot. You are quiet obviously engaged in name calling, while I am trying to provide constructive criticism. You like most people probably don't want to look stupid in front of large numbers of people, and like most people are probably unaware when you do. I'm merely trying to help, so that in the future you can come across as intelligent rather than a dundering chowderhead, which is how you come across now.

They (Saddam's terrorists) already had attacked, and were attacking still. Your claim makes no sense. The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.

Prior to the invasion, when did "Saddam's terrorists" attack the US? If you're going to say 9/11, your so dellusional, but it wouldn't be your fault. You would have just been taken by a orchestrated, and immediately discredited, lie.

How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about thi

1) Richard Butler was in charge of UNSCOM in 1998 (before Desert Fox, which you mentioned), not Hans Blix. Blix was later instated as the head of UNMOVIC for the recent inspection regime.

2) Butler did *not* remove the inspection teams because of "supposed obstinance" - Butler removed his teams (without SC approval) because he was informed by Washington that they would be bombing in twenty-four hours. His cited reason for the withdrawl was the protection of his inspectors.

I've most definitely read the resolution, and the other Iraq resolutions. The heads of the agency to determine the degree of compliance with the said resolutions (UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and the IAEA) were opposed to us invading when we did, and considered their agencies to be making progress toward verification of disarmament. I've already linked quotes earlier in this thread.Don't want to take the word of the organizations tasked to enforce the resolutions? Take the word of the Security Council: 3 of the 5 perm

I disagree.
Space is essentially worthless until it is militarized.
Nothing worthwhile is left unguarded.

A space race would be a good thing, in my opinion, because it focuses the much-maligned military-industrial complex on a worthy goal: human occupancy in space.
It may be more efficient to send up the sleek craft of the X-Prize and other private ventures, but heavy lift will probably only come with military ventures.
Getting to space en mass via the military will doubtless cause distress to many who feel that space should be kept pure, untouched by the dirty and unwholesome aspects of human existence.
Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.

Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.

Not just that, but it would certainly help breath new life into the NASA. Let's face it, NASA is currently being crushed by its own beauracracy.

It may not be long range space missions to Mars and such, but it will certainly help move space flight from where it currently is at the edge of the envelope. The same thing happened with aviation in WWI and WWII. The US and other military powers invested hevily in making aircraft more common place and exploring the variety of roles in which they could be employed. This made aviation safer, more commonplace and in general made the public more aware of it. If the same happens to space flight, only good can come of it.

So lets put it out of its misery. Cut all funding from NASA except the bare minimum to continute to gather data from things already launched (and possibly a few relatively low budget projects that are near completion) and pay down the debt for a few years before launching a new and improved NASA in 15-20 years.

Cut all funding from NASA except the bare minimum [and launch] a new and improved NASA in 15-20 years

You are the kind of guy that would happily eat your seed potatoes if you get a bit hungry in the winter.

Today, you have to do research or your grand children will be poor farmers. Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.

Cut something less important. Say, only start serious wars. Sure, a democratic arab country would make the world a better place -- but there has to be a cheaper way!

Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.

Doesn't have to be done by NASA or any new agency. IMO the idea behind NASA was that it was (theoretically) a non-military driven space exploration agency. Give it a military agenda, and the Air Force is ready and willing to take over.

$10 billion here, $10 billion there, before you know it you are talking about some real money.

I'll grant you NASA is pretty inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, but the manned space program has just become so damn good at spending money and having nothing to show for it, that they are like shooting fish in a barrel.

Reality is when the Republicans are in charge they squander lots of the money on military/intelligence spending and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them. When the Democrats are in charge they squander it on social programs and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them.

Neither party can seem to resist the temptation to dish out large helpings of pork that accomplish very little of real value which would be the first obvious place to start reining in spending. Until there is a third party that is fiscally responsible, and has a chance of winning politicians know they can waste money and get away with it as long as they both do it. They can get away with it that is, until the U.S. debt burden leads to an economic calamity, but at that point its to late.

First off, parent and grandparent are wrong. Neither the military, nor government agencies have been able to make major infrastructural changes in our country. It's always been industry. Don't get me wrong, the military and the government have, on occasion, done a great deal to get things started (think darpanet), but it's always been the free enterprise system that's balooned those things to global significance (think cisco and intel).On the other hand, the article was wrong too. According to the artic

ok, ya got me. Teaches me to make blanket statements. I'm thinking now of other examples as well, but they all come with a very significant private component. Even the presense of private road crews working in a competitive environment is neccessary to keep our current roads in good running order.

I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.

Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).

However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY:* War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods;* War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good);* War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.

The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.

This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.

Here's the thing - you don't get them. Do you think that peasantry and labourers get any of the tribute in Roman or British empires? Government takes care of the peasantry, but it works for the industrialists. Their tribute of Iraq's oil fields is on it's way. Not to mention access to Afghanistan for a pipeline.

Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.

Oh, the peacenik in me hates to agree with this kind of thinking, but I must agree.

Don't forget that many military ventures on earth resulted in significant scientific advances. For example, World War II gave us Penecillin (spelling?); the jet engine; and without the funding for the Manhattan project, it may have taken many

The problem isn't littering space which, as you point out, is pretty much a non-issue.

The problem is poluting low-Earth orbit, a narrow sphere around our planet. Putting even the most malicious space-based weapons somewhere in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri is no big deal. Ading a bunch of items to an already crowded area including the ISS, most shuttle flight paths, communications satellites, etc. would probably not be the best idea.

We're boned. This kind of stuff scares the hell out of me. Having weapons that can disable other satellites is one thing. The next thing you know, laserbeams from outer space could fry anyone anywhere. And who is gonna handle it? The most violent nation in the world. This is not a dig on the american gung-ho way that seems the norm these days, i'm just putting in the perspective of a foreigner. And like the cruise missiles, they're gonna pull the "It's for our defense, national security, blabla" card to put

Bit of a stretch, isn't it? The US may be the most powerful country on the planet, and it may be to most arrogant country on the planet, and it may even be the most bullyish country on the planet, but it is hardly the most violent.

Let's take a poll. All those in favor of USSR dominating the world raise their hands...thought so.

Interesting straw man, but it doesn't answer the original question, namely, "is the US the most violent nation in the world?" There needn't be an either/or choice among the US/USSR. It is very possible that a world system could have many strong powers, but none overpowering any of the others.

Depending on how you define violence, it very well may be. Some of the countries in central Africa are giving us a run

Depending on how you define violence, it very well may be. Some of the countries in central Africa are giving us a run for our money, but I'd think that over the past few centuries, we take the cake in total combat deaths inflicted.

So I take it that the commies in the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. starving tens of millions of thier own citizens to death doesn't count as 'violence'?

In addition to 'powerfulness', I think you really need to consider the type of government a country actually has. I personally wou

>> Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.

This statement shoots your entire argument to hell. Read some history. The Cuban missile crisis was probably the single closest point that humanity has come to self-annihilation. No theoretical threat could ever approach it.

>> Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disabling a satellite or

The next thing you know, laserbeams from outer space could fry anyone anywhere.

Of course it will always be far cheaper just to send a hired thug to shoot you. I love people who think anyone cares enough about them to point some multibillion dollar array of superscience recon and weaponry in their dirrection.

P.s. I am NOT a crackpot.

No, but well on the way.:-) Keep up the hard work. Try wiritng a small manifesto or keeping a close eye on your mailman.

Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.

How are space based weapons any worse than nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles off your country? Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons we have, and they're capable of hitting anywhere on Earth already. How would weapons being stationed in space be any worse?

Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disa

Thank you! It amazes me how often I point that out. A belief that everything done by our government is done for our benefit is part of a certain mindset. People really believe we are the best, most righteous nation on earth, that everything we do is good and just, that our Republican leaders are all good and just and righteous God fearing Christians with the country's best interest at heart.

To question any part of this belief system induces a state of acute anxiety in these people. They have based their whole ego structure around a belief that they are good people who are part of a good country. To call that into question is to call their very concept of self into question. This explains the ferocity with which they defend their beliefs, and the difficulty in comprehending something even so simple as the idea that our leaders may be acting selfishly in regard to oil.

Gotta be honest, as a U.S. tax payer I this. The ability to take out other satellites helps us in the event of a major military conflicts with other technologically advanced nations. Since I personally feel that a hostile take over of Taiwan by China is inevitable, I look at this as something that could help us to protect Taiwan. No one ever thinks a strong military is worth keeping around until they're on the receiving end of an invasion. Then everyone stands around wondering why their military didn't do anything to prevent it. There's a lot to be said for having a military powerful enough to deter attack.

Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.

Maybe someone else on here can contribute more but the last I checked missile range is not a big issue anymore, atleast not for Russia or the United States. What this adds is another area of launching attacks from. Hell, it might even add another dimension to efficiency. wouldn't take much for something falling from that height to reach a pretty extreme speed I'd imagine.
Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space?

Beg your pardon but who said we were? Creating defenses for investments in space and our nation is entirely different from us stating "We own space, piss off." I mean, last I checked we didn't declare ownership of the moon even though we planted our flag on it.

Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?

How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to, I'm hoping someone else does. And at what point do you think it's fair to say airspace ends?

And I think "Most violent nation in the world" might be bit of an extreme statement. We might be the only nation currently involved in conflicts in two separate countries but it's not exactly like we showed up to fill a bloodlust. Hell, how many conflicts has Europe started by in other country's affairs that it refuses to fix *cough*Africa*cough*.

Laserbeams, smaserbeams, Don't worry about laserbeams, they just will not do the job. Get your biggest fancy-smancy laserbeam, and shoot my house, from space, your luckey to melt a little bit of tar on my roof you putz. The thing to worry about is big rocks, Holey-moley, somebody drops a 250 Kg iron-nickel rock on the house from orbit now we gotta problem. Hits the ground pretty hard, looks like a 15Kt nuke. Put it in a high-elipticle orbit, give it a little nudge at the right time and down it comes, almost

Funny how no one ever asks why the terrorists knocked down the WTC. I read somewhere it was because of our meddling in their affairs. (sorry I can't cite, don't recall) Of course I don't think blowing up the towers was the answer, but did it ever cross your mind that if we just stayed out of their business they'd stop blowing our shit up? They can't kill more of our troops if our troops aren't on that side of the globe either! The events on 911 were in reaction to US foreign policy. You'll never see CNN/Fox say WHY the attack took place, just how horrible it was and how bad the terrorists are.

except that someone eventually will develop space weapons - it would be the height of arrogance to assume that just because the u.s. backs off, everyone will - and we really don't want to get a late start in that race.

Sorry but the old USSR already built and deployed space base weapons. They deployed orbital ASAT systems in the early 70s and even armed one of their manned space stations.The idea that space is weapons free is a myth. If you do not think that spy satellites are not weapons you are just nuts.

"If you do not think that spy satellites are not weapons you are just nuts."

They aren't. Spy satellites are intelligence-gathering devices that allow you to know where to point your weapons. They're no more a weapon themselves than your lungs are a weapon - hey, without lungs you'd have no oxygen to power your muscles to move your finger to press the button that fires the nuke that actually is a weapon...

Ok, I'm being slightly facetious, but you get the point. You can gather all the information you like

The weapon isn't in the artifact, but in the use. If I suffocate you with a Care Bear, I suspect the prosecution at my murder trial would hold out the bear (Friend Bear, in this case) as a weapon. And my defense team would make absolutely no headway against such an accusation by saying "That's not a weapon!"

A telescope becomes a sniper's scope. A steak knife becomes a bayonet. Binoculars, used b

The existence of a weapon means the possibility of being killed by the weapon, regardless of all other considerations. The first person to make the weapon is responsible for any death ever caused by the escalation thereof. There is zero excuse.

So the first guy to hit another guy with a stick is to blame for all thebludgeoning deaths in the last 10,000 years? That's one of the most ridiculousarguments I've ever heard.

way to remove the context from that statement. here it is in full:"MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."

Keep in mind that there are people in the US government who own or consult for or are in some way related to the big business of providing military equiptment to the government. Of course they want this it's great to win a race, but it's even better to sell everyone shoes.

All you need to do is take a look at what country or countries would lose the most if space-based communication and localization functions were lost during a crisis. Actively working to increase the risk of such a scenario is self-defeating and shortsighted (I would like to use the expression "utterly stupid" but people may take offence).

Whatever advantage you can give yourself could possibly turn the tide of a battle.

Imagine being able to blind an enemy in a war by knocking out its surveillance and communications capabilities. How is this a bad thing?

People make it sound like it's a bad thing by starting a space arms race, but there could be worse things- such as your enemy being able to knock out your satellites and you have no ability to do the same. If you're able to develop such technology, do it.

Who is going to keep these weapons safe? These will have to be remotely fired, and with the state of system security these days I don't trust the government to keep their satellite weapons under control.

A little bit of game theory shows why developing space weapons makes sense from the point of view of any one country.

Certainly, a "conspiracy" of ALL countries agreeing NOT to develop space weapons would be in our collective best interests. But no one works in terms of collective best interests unless it also maximizes their own best interests.

Suppose for a moment that a "conspiracy" (or to make the terminology better for this case, a treaty) existed between all nations that "prevented" the development

Am I totally opposed to space weapons? Well, not really. Krepon's arguments include:1) North Korea and Iran don't have space programs. Space weapons would be useful against only Russia and China.2) The US is the world's most important rule maker or rule breaker. We should set an example and develop a code of conduct.

My response to (1) is that militarily, it sucks to get leapfrogged. You don't want to get passed because of complacency. As for (2), bad actors tend not to follow rules anyway, so will the conduct of the US really shape the behavior of the rest of the world? (I would guess that many outside the US would hope not.)

That said, the opportunity cost for space weapons is *huge*. It feeds into the whole asymmetrical warfare concept -- the US can disable satellites but can't stop an insurgency that everybody saw coming except the secretary of defense.

Furthermore, even within military spending there are better places to spend the money than space weapon deployment. More unmanned systems, better infantry-level support, or faster mobilization (so that the US doesn't build up a force and then claim it's so expensive to keep them there that we have to start the war *right now* -- there were people who said we couldn't wait through a summer... about $200 billion ago.)

But the best place to spend money, in my opinion, is accelerated research that supports reduced reliance on oil. (Yes, I'm a Thomas Friedman fan.) I wouldn't mind a grant or two to a brilliant poli sci researcher who could figure out how to sell the public on a large gas tax. (and mitigate the effects on the poor?) I think most economists would say a gas tax (or more generally, a carbon tax) is the most efficient way to spur adoption of renewable energy sources. Otherwise, you're hoping the government can pick technological winners and losers. (While reps are getting nice contributions from the farm lobby.)

There are certainly much better places to spend military money than on space weapons at this point. Personally, I think the area where we need additonal funding most desparately is at the individual soldier and platoon level. We need more soldiers, more and better education for our soldiers, better man-portable equipment, better vehicles, better body armor, better communications, better...well, just about everything at that level. I think the current debacle in Iraq is evidence of this--not to mention that

I find it so interesting how the world society as a whole is essentially allowing these things to occur. Where is our moral responsibility?I am from Canada, and loathe the concept of space warfare. Why would anyone want this capability? Another arms race? Great....

The part of this article that really stumped me, is that the interviewee was stating how wrong it is to have Weapons in Space, but conludes with 'if we did, we would win anyway'... doesn't this statement essentially challenge an opponent?

If we don't get along up there, we're going to have problems very quickly. Blow up a enough satellites, and now you have a cloud of virtually impossible to trace debris orbiting the earth at several km/s and presenting a deadly danger to anything else up there. Eventually, it'll be impossible to send anything up without it getting pelted.Weapons in space do make sense, but only for protection of the Earth from outside dangers, such as wayward asteroids and comets, or as-yet undiscovered hostile alien race

Because of the space weapons race, countries create satellites that can defend themselves from attack. Unfortunately, satellites that pass each other too closely inadvertently fire upon each other and destroy themselves. So satellites have to be made smarter. Eventually satellites become smart enough to join together and restrict access to space as the best preemptive defense move. Mankind, not wanting to be trapped on Earth, launch a ground based attack to take out the satellites. Satellites retaliate

Do we need to defend ourselves to the best degree possible in times of war? Certainly, we do.

Do we need war at all? Certainly, we don't.

Is war inevitable, space weapons or not? 3,000 years of history says it is.

Which is more practical, pretending that war won't happen or accepting that it will? With the latter being more realistic, we may then follow through with the most effective defense and proceed with developing space weapons.

We've always been in some weapons race, though not necessarily at the pace of the Cold War. Space weapons won't initiate any Cold War-esque weapons race as much as any of our other weapons have. They're not holocaust devices like nukes or any NBC weaponry. Without anti-satellite weapons, we're back at traditional warfare. With those weapons, we only take it outside of earth.

Space weaponry if anything will reduce war to a battle of communications and intelligence, where space coverage matters more than occupying ground. With troops and conventional weapons reduced in importance, satellites will be the main casualties, as long as they directly affect the ground war below.

People seem to forget or ignore the fact that deploying space-based wepondry goes against the ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) Treaties signed by us and the USSR. Bush has already broken these treaties in testing many of his toys. Does no one care that he has such disregard for them? He has stated that the treaties are too limimting and therefore aren't in the best interest of our country, a fact I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Incorrect. The Russian Federation/CIS explicitly accepted that it would continue to be bound by the treaties that the USSR had signed. (I.E. SALT, START, the ABM treaty, a whole raft of postal agreements, etc... etc...)

When the US first signed this particularly treaty, a clause was placed there to allow either side to withdraw from it so long as they gave six months notice.

So, to begin with, the notion that the treaty was broken is false. There was an exit clause placed in the treaty and that clause was properly executed.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we decided to pull out of the treaty. However, in regards to your question of "So why did the US sign them in the first place?" and whether or not such treaties are in our self interest... it appears obvious that the leaders that first signed them thought that it would be likely that either side might in the future decide that the treaty should no longer apply. They put that clause in there after all.

I'm not trying to debate the point of whether or not it is a good treaty with respect to our self interest. Frankly, I really don't know. Personally I feel that ABMs are only likely to increase the desire of potential enemies to build up the number of weapons they have capable of reaching us. And it is a particularly bad solution when the cost of an ABM weapon is greater than the cost of the BM it is designed to counter. However, this all comes from my rather limited viewpoint.

But as to the notion of the U.S. breaking the treaty, or whether or not the leaders who signed it thought it was in our best interest to be permanently constrained by such a treaty... it is pretty clear that it was not broken, and the leaders who signed it provided an exit clause.

The ABM treaty is no longer in effect and is irrelevant to this discussion. There are no legal obligations preventing the US from deploying space weapons. It is solely a technical and policy and/or moral decision.

Personally if my neighrbor enforces a ban on comming within 200 feet of his front door (as long as those 200 feet arn't in the road), with his sniper rifle. While the rest of us ban 3feet from our door with our basebat bats. I say more power to em, just give me a warning shot first.. ok.

Quote from the article:
MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants.

So in short, you can reduce the efficiency of the US army by taking out their satellites. Since other countries are denied access to space, this would be a good tactic for such a country. They will be more dependent and more trained in a war without satellite information, and will be enabled by such a move to get the upperhand in a conflict.

I think the US better invest in protecting their own satellites since they are the softpoint.

PS Disabling satellites by large lasers might work since you could fry just a few components like a photo optic chip, the rest of the satellite is packed in a heat blanket to reflect sunlight and thus a laser will just reflect of that too (at least most of it, rendering it pretty useless, if the atmosphere didn't do that yet)

Without Space Weapons, there would be no Star TrekWithout Star Trek, there would be no Captain KirkWithout Captain Kirk, there would be no GeeksWithout Geeks, there would be no SlashdotWithout Slashdot, I would stop wasting time at work

So: No Space Weapons = No Geeks = No Slashdot = A Raise in our National GDP

"Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."

So we can get them to ignore our satelites—the ones that have been absolutely vital to every war the U.S. has fought since 1988—by not weaponizing space? Please, explain more.

"Rules matter, and we are the world's most important rule maker or rule breaker. One rule that has stood the test of time so far is that you don't attack satellites directly. That's a very important rule to keep if we want to protect our forces in the field. We could develop a code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations."

Some rules matter. This one doesn't. No nation at war with us is going to ignore our satelites giving us up-to-the-minute battlefield data when it has the option to do something about them instead.

So we develop space weapons. They develop space weapons. We all develop space weapons. We decide to blow the 1,800 satellites out of the sky in some sort of stellar turf war.

What nobody has considered, is the gravity of the situation (literally, or lack thereof). Now you have billions of little pieces of satellite material flying around in all directions without any gravity to stop them.

You think some foam sticking out of the bottom of the shuttle has problems now, try plucking it out of there with billions of pieces of metal, plastic, glass, wire and other satellite debris flying around you in all directions at 16,000 miles per-hour.

Sure, some of it will orbitally degrade into the atmosphere, but much of it will not, and it will continue to fly in all directions at full-speed, until it either collides with something to slow it down, or it deflects off of something (such as the other billion pieces of debris) to change its path.

Forget going to the moon, other shuttle launches, Mars missions, all of it. Not without some major retrofit to the hull and other materials used in the manufacturing of them (i.e. adding weight, potentially).

Yes, lets all just blow ourselves out of the sky too, and keep our upper orbital atmosphere a nice fence of shrapnel traveling at thousands of miles per-hour.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Actually, if you go a bit further, you can wonder how many satellites you need to destroy before the debris end up destroying even more satellites create a chain reaction. I'm sure I've seen people research that, but I don't know the result. With the number of satellites up there, I would expect just a few would be enough.

If you get tons of debris 40,000km up, who has the most satellites there to lose?

You think north korea would care as much? China? India?

It costs a lot more to defend a satellite against this than to destroy a satellite. It's also not too hard to disguise a killer satellite as a civilian satellite (but this would have to be in a "normal" orbit travelling in the same direction as other satellites- makes it a bit harder to be very damaging).

I don't see why one should spend so much money on space weapons. A few dozen _cheap_ satellites with explosives and hard to deflect shrapnel (glass?) can make tons of orbits useless. How it could work - someone just has to stop broadcasting the relevant keepalive signals, or broadcast a "trigger" signal and the shrapnel satellites will blow up and wipe various orbits within a day.

So your mucho expensive space weapons better be parked in different orbits or be capable of moving significantly. And you better be able to decide and use them quickly.

If stuff happens we'd probably lose use of the prime orbit regions, for quite a long time.

"People like you (Liberal Democrats) have made defense contracting a hard place to break even, much less make a profit! I suggest you go learn a little something about a field you obviously do not know a single thing about, other than the name."

And how is that a bad thing?

You seem to be implying that it's something they've done wrong, but I can't see a much more progressive step for the world than making it economically unviable to get rich by enabling the deaths or maiming of millions...

Let's be honest - the US is never (at least, not before the Big Post-Bush Economic Collapse) going to be unable to afford weapons to defend itself.

Given your country's always going to be safe and well-supplied, what's wrong with making it damn hard for people to acquire wealth and influence by profiting from human misery and suffering?

Frankly, it'd be a better world if weapons were totally unnecessary, but I'll settle for now for them being merely prohibitively expensive.

North Korea doesn't have the economics or science to be involved in a space race.

Sure, the Chinese have space ambitions, but they suffer from the same economic and technological hurdles... they want to put a man on the moon to stir national pride. Why the hell would they want to spend billions in Star Wars when they already have numerical superiority? In a conventional ground war, hi-tech technology is not decided advantage.